InDOOR smoking ban. OutDOOR smoking shelters in demand. DOORs not allowed.

[mikea]

1. Statewide indoor smoking ban began Jan. 1.
2. Businesses are scrambling to erect outdoor shelters to shield smoking employees from the cold.
3. The shelters can't have doors because then they would also be indoors.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-smoking-shackjan29,1,7204607.story

This story brought to you by Douglas Adams.

 

[wsuffa]

Were the company I formerly worked for smart, they would install the shelters for free and put outdoor advertising on the shelters.....

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Were the company I formerly worked for smart, they would install the shelters for free and put outdoor advertising on the shelters.....

I've been thinking the same thing... get MO in there.

Also, I just heard from a coworker (don't have a link or anything), that they're coming out with Marlboro "Intense" cigarettes. They're shorter and smoke faster but pack the same punch, so smokers can get their fix while spending less time outside... Maybe they could slap some ads for those in there.

 

[mikea]

Were the company I formerly worked for smart, they would install the shelters for free and put outdoor advertising on the shelters.....

Those shelters look a lot like the J. C. Deaux bus shelters clogging the sidewalks of Chicago. I was wondering if this company actually makes those.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Got no problem with the ban on doors. As for the "intense" cigs, heck, just peel apart a regular cig and get the bong down from the attic. It's a more efficient drug delivery system.

 

[mikea]

I've been thinking the same thing... get MO in there.

Also, I just heard from a coworker (don't have a link or anything), that they're coming out with Marlboro "Intense" cigarettes. They're shorter and smoke faster but pack the same punch, so smokers can get their fix while spending less time outside... Maybe they could slap some ads for those in there.

Maybe Marlboro could just come out with nicotine delivery in an IV drip. OOOOOOOHHHH!! I got it!
Marlboro Mainline! (C) 2008 ME

 

[wsuffa]

Those shelters look a lot like the J. C. Deaux bus shelters clogging the sidewalks of Chicago. I was wondering if this company actually makes those.

I was at the corporate level of the holding company. JCD was our largest competitor - we were larger.

Neither of the companies actually manufacture the shelters - the shelters are built under contract to the design specs. Most cities (and Chicago was one) insist on having their own design.

Profits are very good on the shelters, but the city gets a huge guaranteed payment and a profit share on top. And bragging rights.

Whadda you wanna know about the biz?

 

[Teller1900]

Think that's rediculous? One of the captains I fly with is a heavy smoker. He was telling me about the rules at the Charlotte airport, where he goes frequently on his way home.

They got rid of the indoor smokers' lounge, so everyone is required to go outside. Still dissatisfied with people standing in front of the doors smoking, they painted little boxes on the sidewalk where smokers can stand. Long story short, they enforce those boxes with an iron fist. So much so, that when this captain was standing with one foot outside the box, due to the other six people and their bags taking up quite a bit of room in the box, an airport security guard (I forgot to ask if it was the brilliant TSA agents) ordered him back in the box under penalty of arrest. And the guy wasn't joking, either.

 

[astanley]

Were the company I formerly worked for smart, they would install the shelters for free and put outdoor advertising on the shelters.....

Tell us how you really feel, Bill...

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[mikea]

I was at the corporate level of the holding company. JCD was our largest competitor - we were larger.

Neither of the companies actually manufacture the shelters - the shelters are built under contract to the design specs. Most cities (and Chicago was one) insist on having their own design.

Profits are very good on the shelters, but the city gets a huge guaranteed payment and a profit share on top. And bragging rights.

Whadda you wanna know about the biz?

Your mistake was not being da guys who sponsored Duh Mare's trips to Paris.

As I understand it, after Daley said, "I want dese," Chicago signed a no-bid contract for $2-$3 million a year. These tings only bring in $850 million over da 20 years? Whatta deal!

Too bad Chicago taxpayers just got another huge tax bill increase.

 

[wsuffa]

Your mistake was not being da guys who sponsored Duh Mare's trips to Paris.

As I understand it, after Daley said, "I want dese," Chicago signed a no-bid contract for $2-$3 million a year. These tings only bring in $850 million over da 20 years? Whatta deal!

Too bad Chicago taxpayers just got another huge tax bill increase.

Mike,

It wasn't a no-bid contract. What da Mare wanted was way too rich for our blood. We did bid in one round, but weren't willing to put up the $$$ and guarantees that JCD did. Likewise the New York contract, which went to another party.

Part of the difference is that JCD was using a lower cost of money than we did - and part was their typical "denegotiation" of a contract after it was signed. The way that worked was a reduction in payment for every delay, lack of approval, or impeded permit that affected revenue.

Our folks in the Outdoor division felt they could make more money with other investments, and who was I to disagree?

 

[wsuffa]

Tell us how you really feel, Bill...

Cheers,

-Andrew

Actually, I have the highest regard for the folks in the Outdoor division. The CEO of that group is outstanding, and runs a really great operation. They're also the ones that are growing the fastest revenue-wise.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek, because I know that if they'd thought of it, and thought they could get enough advertising revenue, they'd do it in a minute. The economics (or specifically the risk profile) are a LOT better on a group of shelters provided to corporations than the guaranteed city contracts for bus shelters.

 

[SkyHog]

We have a bar here in Albuquerque that still allows smoking indoors, not a club like some did, but a bar that said "Screw the hippies, screw the law." I'm assuming they pay fines, but they probably make more in making 95% of their clientelle happy and not pandering to the other 6 people in the city that would take offense.

Don't like smoke in bars (as its been for longer than we've been alive)? Stay the hell home, don't ruin it for everyone else.

You notice even non smokers tend to smoke when they drink? Who's the law actually made to protect? All 20 of you nationwide should keep quiet. In the meantime, I'll enjoy having fun at the one bar with the cajones to do the right thing for their customers.

/rant off

 

[astanley]

We have a bar here in Albuquerque that still allows smoking indoors, not a club like some did, but a bar that said "Screw the hippies, screw the law." I'm assuming they pay fines, but they probably make more in making 95% of their clientelle happy and not pandering to the other 6 people in the city that would take offense.

Don't like smoke in bars (as its been for longer than we've been alive)? Stay the hell home, don't ruin it for everyone else.

You notice even non smokers tend to smoke when they drink? Who's the law actually made to protect? All 20 of you nationwide should keep quiet. In the meantime, I'll enjoy having fun at the one bar with the cajones to do the right thing for their customers.

/rant off

How can you complain about "stupid hippie druggies" in one thread, and then support people willfully breaking the law to smoke another (legal) drug? I mean, that doesn't add up...

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[SkyHog]

How can you complain about "stupid hippie druggies" in one thread, and then support people willfully breaking the law to smoke another (legal) drug? I mean, that doesn't add up...

Cheers,

-Andrew

Last time I checked, cigarette smoking is a legal pastime. Smoking marijuana is not.

Oh, and me smoking cigarettes isn't going to kill a group of people when I decide to land after consuming multiple cigarettes.

The law was passed by the minority (as in most cases) because they ***** so much. The liberal hippies. Never content. Must always have some cause to fight for. Today its cigarettes in bars, tomorrow it will be poop-smell in preschools.

 

[rpadula]

Also, I just heard from a coworker (don't have a link or anything), that they're coming out with Marlboro "Intense" cigarettes. They're shorter and smoke faster but pack the same punch, so smokers can get their fix while spending less time outside...

Good. It'll get those losers back into the office and doing their work that much quicker.

It really irks me that it's basically acceptable for smokers to go take their "smoke breaks" several times a day (a legal activity), while it's quite frowned-upon for a non-smoker, such as myself, to take a "beer break" (another legal activity) once in a while.


-Rich

 

[Ken Ibold]

You notice even non smokers tend to smoke when they drink?

Nope. I've never noticed that. I have noticed a very small number of supposedly ex-smokers smoke when they drink. But non smokers tend to be non smokers.

And I am one of those vocal smoking opponents. Why should someone's addiction intrude on my enjoyment of the world? Let them feed their addiction away from me if they want. It's as offensive to me as it would be to you if I farted in your face.

 

[astanley]

Last time I checked, cigarette smoking is a legal pastime. Smoking marijuana is not.

Oh, and me smoking cigarettes isn't going to kill a group of people when I decide to land after consuming multiple cigarettes.

The law was passed by the minority (as in most cases) because they ***** so much. The liberal hippies. Never content. Must always have some cause to fight for. Today its cigarettes in bars, tomorrow it will be poop-smell in preschools.

However, in your state, it is illegal to smoke in a facility that holds out to the public for service. How is one different from the other, Nick?

The minority? How many people in this country smoke, Nick? 46.2M adult smokers, out of 200M adults. I guess that means you are in the minority... not the "non smoker liberal hippies" you are spouting against.

-Andrew

 

[kevin47881]

Speaking of minorities...I quit smoking 1/16/90 and haven't had one since. However, my opinion is that the smoking ban in bars and restaurants is asinine. These are privatly owned businesses allowing legal activities. Do what I do, if the place is too smokey for my liking I just leave. It's a free country the last I checked.

Heck, if it's for the safety of society, why not make drinking in bars illegal as we all KNOW drinking and driving kills peple.

The government has over stepped the line in this case as well as the no trans fat deal in New York. The nanny state is alive and well.

 

[astanley]

Speaking of minorities...I quit smoking 1/16/90 and haven't had one since. However, my opinion is that the smoking ban in bars and restaurants is asinine. These are privatly owned businesses allowing legal activities. Do what I do, if the place is too smokey for my liking I just leave. It's a free country the last I checked.

Heck, if it's for the safety of society, why not make drinking in bars illegal as we all KNOW drinking and driving kills peple.

The government has over stepped the line in this case as well as the no trans fat deal in New York. The nanny state is alive and well.

Kevin, I actually tend to agree with you. Private is private. However, one of the big problems is "controlling" the side-effects of second hand smoke consumption, the argument is, it poses a significant health hazard over and beyond what is expected in a restaurant.

So, no smoking in restaurants and similar places. From a strictly legal, moral point of view, it's a struggle -- allowing smoking in restaurants clearly provides a minority of people the opportunity to infringe upon others, and the market isn't very good at deciding on this one (because so many restaurant owners are so afraid of losing any clients, few will willingly go non-smoking)... I have heard "rumors" that the state restaurant association, which fought these tooth-and-nail in the court of public opinion, was sliding money to campaigns who supported the ban...

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Good. It'll get those losers back into the office and doing their work that much quicker.

It really irks me that it's basically acceptable for smokers to go take their "smoke breaks" several times a day (a legal activity), while it's quite frowned-upon for a non-smoker, such as myself, to take a "beer break" (another legal activity) once in a while.


-Rich

When a smoker (and I used to be one) comes back from a smoke break, they don't have a beer buzz going. That's why it's frowned upon: Same reason it's okay to smoke and drive but not drink and drive.

But, if you think there's some inequity between smokers' and non-smokers' breaks in general, though (and a lot of people do and they might be right), I'd say you should take a "fresh air break" or the like with the same frequency as smokers take their smoke break. That's only fair.

Oh, and the Ballmer Curve? Totally, TOTALLY been there done that, btw.

Kevin, I actually tend to agree with you. Private is private. However, one of the big problems is "controlling" the side-effects of second hand smoke consumption, the argument is, it poses a significant health hazard over and beyond what is expected in a restaurant.

I recently quit, but the Illinois smoking ban bothers me. Bars and restaurants? Ehh, it doesn't sit well with me because it's private property, and I don't agree that it's a legitimate act of government to restrict it, but hey, I get it at least.

What bothers me is that the ban extends to already existing private clubs (think your local VFW). Check it out: Are you a member of a properly formed, not-for-pecuniary-gain, completely private club with a club-owned facility? No smoking there. Even if you all vote in favor of allowing it. Sorry. To me, that's beyond the pale; some people might dismiss me as a "liberal hippie" about other things, but in this case, I see absolutely no way to view that as anything other than extraordinary and frightening government overreaching. In my mind, it's little different than the government saying, "Hey, you have some friends over to your house for some beers? Can't smoke. In your home. Too bad." And that concerns me greatly. But the nannies happily stroll along, ignoring any of the possible negative ramifications -- or flat out denying that there could possibly even be any negative ramifications -- saying, "Woo-hoo! I don't have to dry-clean my clothes after going to the bar anymore! Who gives a **** about property rights?" And thusly the slide begins.

 

[gprellwitz]

But, if you think there's some inequity between smokers' and non-smokers' breaks in general, though (and a lot of people do and they might be right), I'd say you should take a "fresh air break" or the like with the same frequency as smokers take their smoke break. That's only fair.

Ummm.... Seriously, from a practical standpoint, where would we go to do that?

 

[SkyHog]

Nope. I've never noticed that. I have noticed a very small number of supposedly ex-smokers smoke when they drink. But non smokers tend to be non smokers.

And I am one of those vocal smoking opponents. Why should someone's addiction intrude on my enjoyment of the world? Let them feed their addiction away from me if they want. It's as offensive to me as it would be to you if I farted in your face.

Here's the thing, Ken, before the smoking ban went into place, most people in the bar smoked, and the only time I heard a complaint was usually when it was so bad that even I (as a smoker) had to step outside for fresh air.

Now, y'all that think that somehow inhaling smoke for a split second is more dangerous that breathing CO all day long from traffic (there's been a study! It must be true!), have to breath that smoke on the way into the bar. So you're getting your nicotine hit before you even get inside now.

I've known many, many non-smokers that smoke when they drink. It goes hand in hand - beer/cigarette is an excellent combo for relaxation. Those same people are now gypped out of a good night so that the minority (and I continue to say minority, because if you go to a bar and watch the number of people that go outside to smoke, it certainly outnumbers those that don't smoke) can drink their Cosmopolitans and not worry about getting a little smoke in their eye.

Some bars are adding smoking patios where you can drink outside and smoke. That will be an acceptable replacement for me, until the hippies start crying because they like to sit outside too, and why do they have to be subjected to smoke on an outdoor patio? (It'll happen...just ask Californians).

And I mean no personal offense to you, but we can turn your statement around a bit too:

Why should someone's distaste for a particular legal activity infringe on my rights to do such activity in a private establishment that was designed to allow it? It'd be like me coming to your house and complaining because you had the nerve to fart in your living room.

 

[gprellwitz]

What we need is a tobacco weed-flavored lollipop with nicotine! Handles the drug craving, the oral fixation, the bad taste all in one device without adversely affecting either the licker or his/her compatriots with tar in the lungs. Problem is that a lollipop would be attractive to kids, too.

 

[SkyHog]

Problem is that a lollipop would be attractive to kids, too.

We gotta get 'em back somehow! They took away Joe Camel, which was OBVIOUSLY geared towards children

Another example - find some old Joe Camel merchandise, and see how many scenes were set in bars....

 

[mikea]

Here's the thing, Ken, before the smoking ban went into place, most people in the bar smoked, and the only time I heard a complaint was usually when it was so bad that even I (as a smoker) had to step outside for fresh air...

The thing is...even though I smoke cigars, I don't like having to deal with somebody smoking cigarettes near me at a restaurant or a bar. It actually makes me cough. What I found happens is I start coughing, I look around and see somebody smoking 30 feet away.

The thing is...I HAVEN'T HAD a PROBLEM WITH SMOKERS IN MANY YEARS. There was no need for the statewide smoking ban. All we needed was what we had - a non-smoking area.

Recently (last year) when some were smoking in a nearby restaurant/bar I just sat further away. I had no problems eating my breakfast.

The attitude of the guy in the village about the restaurant that was trying to make the smoking area too nice shows that the reason behind this ban was to get smokers hassled enough to stop smoking. Same with not having door when the whole point of the shelter is to ONLY HAVE SMOKERS IN IT WHO ARE SMOKING. I guess that works, but how about if we just let people do what they do?

It's an extension of the old lady neighbor who thinks you should do everything the way she does. "Why do you need to plant pansies when I plant roses? Why don't you pull all the way up your driveway like I do?", etc.

We should let it be known during the next election that the legislatures might consider the majority that isn't the vocal few screaming for new laws outlawing the other guys.

 

[gprellwitz]

Nick, you keep talking about how many of the people in the bars smoke, and I won't deny that. However, is it possible that it is because all the non-smokers have just stopped going to the bars? I know I avoid going there because the smoke gives me a headache and my clothes always smell like doo-doo (don't want to be filtered ) when I leave.

And I'm part of the minority. I don't smoke. I don't shoot. I don't ride motorcycles.

 

[SkyHog]

The thing it is...even though I smoke cigars, I don't like having to deal with somebody smoking near me at a restaurant or a bar. It actually makes me cough.

The thing is...I HAVEN'T HAD a PROBLEM WITH SMOKERS IN MANY YEARS. There was no need for the statewide smoking ban. All we needed was what we had - a non-smoking area.

Recently (last year) when some were smoking in a nearby restaurant/bar I just sat further away. I had no problems eating my breakfast.

The attitude of the guy in the village about the restaurant that was trying to make the smoking area too nice shows that the reason behind this ban was to get smokers hassled enough to stop smoking. Same with not having door when the whole point of the shelter is to ONLY HAVE SMOKERS IN IT WHO ARE SMOKING. I guess that works, but how about if we just let people do what they do?

It's an extension of the old lady neighbor who thinks you should do everything the way she does. "Why do you need to plant pansies when I plant roses? Why don't you pull all the way up your driveway like I do?", etc.

We should let it be known during the next election that the legislatures might consider the majority that isn't the vocal few screaming for new laws outlawing the other guys.

Indeed. And this is all true. The law here states that there must be either an open roof or open wall to be considered a "Patio." Its also contradictory, in that while its a smoking area, technically, you're supposed to stand 20 ft away from the exits to smoke. Most of the patios ain't 20 ft wide.

The goal is to harrass us to quit. I am an adult, I am pretty sure I get to make that decision, not the government or the 6 people that made this happen.

 

[SkyHog]

Nick, you keep talking about how many of the people in the bars smoke, and I won't deny that. However, is it possible that it is because all the non-smokers have just stopped going to the bars? I know I avoid going there because the smoke gives me a headache and my clothes always smell like doo-doo (don't want to be filtered ) when I leave.

And I'm part of the minority. I don't smoke. I don't shoot. I don't ride motorcycles.

I'd actually thought about that being a possibility. And it is a possibility. But even if it is more true than not (I'm not saying either way here), its a privately owned establishment. Should the owner not get to determine what kind of clientele he wants? I'm not so big on the gov't making that decision for him.

Now, on the flip side, most parties I go to (or have gone to), there are a lot of smokers and a lot of non-smokers....about a 50-50 mix (maybe more non smokers now adays...its getting pretty bad for us now). We smoke outside at most parties because, like me, most people don't like their house to reek of old stale cigarette smoke. Outside, there are usually more people smoking than there are inside not smoking, and even the non smokers will eventually come outside to join the real action, and often times will smoke a cigarette or two while they drink.

So, I really think that smoking and alcohol go hand in hand. Its possible that non-smokers were avoiding bars, but I just think its a different type of person (in general...not always!). I mean, you don't really go to a bar and order a class of Chardonnay and some Tar Tar. You get a beer and some wings.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Ummm.... Seriously, from a practical standpoint, where would we go to do that?

Well, you cold go outside, like the smokers. But unlike the smokers, you can just stay within 15 feet of the door.

I was just addressing something I used to hear a lot as a smoker: "It's not fair you all take a 'smoke break' every 2 hours and I'm stuck at my desk all day!" as if smoking somehow cut the chain to our desks and entitled us to more time away from our desks. It's not as though we were allowed more breaks because we smoked; we just took them more because we had something to do while we took them.

A (not-so?) interesting aside: The hardest part of quitting for me has been at work... Not having a reason to step away every few hours has led me to get a lot more stressed and run-down. I've had to start just walking around once every few hours to stay as sane as I used to be (or, at least, as sane as I believed I was. )

 

[Ken Ibold]

I've known many, many non-smokers that smoke when they drink. It goes hand in hand - beer/cigarette is an excellent combo for relaxation. Those same people are now gypped out of a good night so that the minority (and I continue to say minority, because if you go to a bar and watch the number of people that go outside to smoke, it certainly outnumbers those that don't smoke) can drink their Cosmopolitans and not worry about getting a little smoke in their eye.

Some bars are adding smoking patios where you can drink outside and smoke. That will be an acceptable replacement for me, until the hippies start crying because they like to sit outside too, and why do they have to be subjected to smoke on an outdoor patio? (It'll happen...just ask Californians).

And I mean no personal offense to you, but we can turn your statement around a bit too:

Why should someone's distaste for a particular legal activity infringe on my rights to do such activity in a private establishment that was designed to allow it? It'd be like me coming to your house and complaining because you had the nerve to fart in your living room.

Seems to me a "non-smoker who smokes when they drink" isn't a non smoker at all, but an occasional smoker.

For what it's worth, Florida has for years banned smoking just about everywhere. Yes, if you go to the stadium to catch a Marlins game or a Jags game, you must leave your seat and go to a smokers ghetto, where you might catch part of it on an itsy bitsy TV. Such is the price of your vice.

The legality -- or illegality -- is in part simple political correctness, no doubt about that. But it comes in response to a violation of common courtesy by smokers who feel their rights trump the rights of the majority who do not smoke. The old saw applies: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Oh, and I love your implication that "most" people with active social lives smoke and that "all" non-smokers are pansies or hippies. Classic debating feint.

 

[gprellwitz]

Well, you cold go outside, like the smokers. But unlike the smokers, you can just stay within 15 feet of the door.

Yeah, it's supposed to be that way. In actuality, I find that that portion of the law is more often observed in the breach.

I'd start in on the inequities in health care costs passed on to the taxpayer as a result of smoking, but then this might start getting over to the SZ.

 

[mikea]

A (not-so?) interesting aside: The hardest part of quitting for me has been at work... Not having a reason to step away every few hours has led me to get a lot more stressed and run-down. I've had to start just walking around once every few hours to stay as sane as I used to be (or, at least, as sane as I believed I was. )

Yep. I had days when I said "I need to catch the next train" and then dive back into work and discover I missed it and it's 8 o'clock. And others at the same time when I realized I hadn't gotten out of my chair since lunch.

It was different when I was gulping down 20 oz bottles of Diet Pepsi. At least that made me HAVE to get up every so often.

 

[SkyHog]

The legality -- or illegality -- is in part simple political correctness, no doubt about that. But it comes in response to a violation of common courtesy by smokers who feel their rights trump the rights of the majority who do not smoke. The old saw applies: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

But see, that's the thing. The smoking areas in restaurants were usually segregated (albeit not by much at times), and I know I, as a smoker, and most others as well, would actually extinguish a cigarette at someone's request in restaurants. That meant that if it bothered ya, you just had to ask, and we'd comply. But now that we have to smoke outside, people still complain about having to walk through the smoke to get to the restaurant. It wasn't like that before y'all forced your hand. Before, you could walk, unbothered by smoke, into a restaurant, request a seat away from the smoking section by simply saying "Non smoking, please" and more often than not, never be bothered by smoke. Now y'all have to deal with it, so its worse for both groups: Smokers and non smokers.

Oh, and I love your implication that "most" people with active social lives smoke and that "all" non-smokers are pansies or hippies. Classic debating feint.

No feint there. Smoking is, much like drinking, a very social thing (has been for years before I was even born). Its not that all non-smokers are pansies or hippies, but rather those that fight to subdue the rights of others to pursue laws against small discomforts that are easily avoided anyways are pansies or hippies. I would never insult a non-smoker directly just because they don't smoke (unlike non-smokers, who generally feel it is acceptable to discriminate and begrudge smokers). Its the non-smokers that feel it is necessary at every step to tell me that I'm going to die, or that I'm weakwilled or weak minded that drive me insane, and those are the ones I'll call out.

 

[KennyFlys]

Smoking isn't the smartest thing one can do. It's not the dumbest, either. Slapping some sense into the smoker might be less smart; something or other about assault?

So, like a few others, if a place is too much for me, I'll just leave.

 

[tdager]

Smoking sucsk...and my parents suck and I tell them that.

We heard the same drivel here in the Atlanta before the smoking bans went in.."we will lose money, our customers will go away!".

Funny thing is that, on average, MORE customers came, MORE money rolled it.

As someone else stated....most restaurant owners were so afraid to lose anyone that walked in the door they had fear of doing it on their own. The law allowed them to do it without getting flak from their customers.

BTW...a freaking booth wall is NOT separation. I mean does anyone stand around a fire and sniff the smoke? Why would anyone think I want to hang around and smell something burning? IF you could smoke and NOT affect me, I would battle for you all day long. However since one cannot control smoke....we controlled the smoking.

 

[t0r0nad0]

Man, this thread is making me want a cigarette!

Here in Houston, they banned smoking in restaurants about two or three years ago. The ban spread to all bars last September. While I agree with Nick about questioning the government's authority to set the policies of a private enterprise, I do have to admit that the better half and I (who both smoke occasionally) really do enjoy going to bars more. Really, it's not that big of a deal to step outside if we want to smoke, and that trade-off is more than acceptable in lieu of coming home reeking of smoke (and smelling it in her hair while lying next to her all night).

 

[steingar]

A few liberal hippies can't ban much of anything. Those ordinances often pass with overwhelming public support. Face it smokers, you're annoying and nobody likes you.

That said, I voted against the local smoking ban (fat lot of good my vote did) because I detest NIMBY laws. The majority did not want the minority to smoke in their presence because it's unpleasant, not because it's wrong, bad or unhealthy. I find significant parallels in society's treatment of smokers, gun owners, and pilots. I personally don't like any of it.

 

[gkainz]

I like the smoke free environment. But I'm NOT a fan of big brother government. Why not allow the business owners to choose smoking or non-smoking, and let the public decide which they will patronize?

 

[tdager]

I like the smoke free environment. But I'm NOT a fan of big brother government. Why not allow the business owners to choose smoking or non-smoking, and let the public decide which they will patronize?

Because outside the ivory tower of academia the "free market" rarely works the way people think, or hope, it will.

As stated above...these laws could not pass if it was just a vocal minority. Most of these bans are passed by overwhelming support...funny thing is their voices were apparently NOT heard by the restaurant owners prior to the ban.